Not only is the notion of nativism as a basis for policy sadistic, unscientific, hypocritical, and unworkable, but “natural” is not synonymous with better; it is objectively and demonstrably worse.
National Park Service (NPS) rangers killed a newborn bison calf after a
visitor tried to help the calf catch his herd because he was falling behind.
NPS claimed the baby’s willingness to approach people constituted a danger.
In response to criticism, NPS “defended its policy of not interfering in the
natural death of animals on public lands [or proactively killing them],
including orphaned offspring.”
The agency says its “focus is on sustaining viable populations of native
wildlife species, rather than protecting individual animals. An animal’s
survival depends on its own daily decisions and natural selection.”
This view is indefensible. Not only is the notion of nativism as a basis for
policy sadistic, unscientific, hypocritical, and unworkable, but “natural”
is not synonymous with better; it is objectively and demonstrably worse.
There is no compelling reason why individual animal suffering that humans
can rectify is preferable to diminished suffering, extended lifespan, or
opportunity to pursue happiness when humans help animals who need it.
As the most resourceful species on the planet, with the ability to solve
problems unrivaled by any of our fellow Earthlings, we have a duty to
diminish the suffering of animals (regardless of whether or not we caused
it).
“Might” does not make “right,” but it does create affirmative obligations to use those powers for the good of all.